We were the last batch at Dhaka University to witness the dominance of both Jatiyatabadi Chatra Dal (JCD) and Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) on campus
When we were at the intermediate and tertiary levels, the BNP-led Four-Party Alliance and Jamaat-e-Islami were in power after their victory in the 2001 election.
The Awami League had won the 2008 election, and held power until the final stage of our tertiary education.
The BCL's dominance and oppression had reached such a level that even a child could tell stories about it.
But for those who know little or nothing about the times before Chhatra League, perhaps a reading—or re-reading—of those times is essential for the sake of an objective understanding of history.
For those of us old enough, the events of that era are still vivid in our memory.
The student wing of the BNP, the Chhatra Dal, had immense influence on campuses. You had to make way when a leader or "boro bhai" was walking on the same path as you. You had to tread carefully when moving about dorms. It felt as though an election might change the situation, but the election didn't take place.
Instead, there was the 1/11 political changeover, the election was delayed, and then the August uprising occurred, and students' protests rang out across campuses. Yet, when I arrived at university, I found that the Chhatra Dal still reigned supreme.
Abuse of power for a trifle
As someone who studied at a government college, I know that there is no real political education among the dominant student organisations in such institutes—only activities resembling tribal feuds.
In my intermediate college days, the Chhatra Dal caused me a problem that left me counting the days until I would be freed from their days of ignorance. I won't go into all the details as many of my classmates may feel embarrassed even after nearly two decades. On the other hand, perhaps they don't even remember.
It was a trivial matter. One local Chhatra Dal leader took a liking to my bicycle. He forcibly seized it, claiming it was his.
The matter escalated all the way to the municipal mayor. I got my bicycle back, but my classmates involved with the Chhatra Dal were displeased. They tried to humiliate me. Relationships soured—though eventually, they mended to some extent.
But I couldn't help but wonder: if someone can abuse their power so disgracefully over something as trivial as a bicycle, what good are they doing for students?
The politics of seat alocation
How does a student organisation establish such dominance in residential halls and on campus? I'll share another lived example.
I had entered university. There was a "severe seat crisis" in the halls, or that was the general idea around campus. As first-year students, we were placed in gono rooms, or common rooms (so widespread was this notion that at the time it seemed like the de facto practice). At first, it seemed nice—meeting and befriending students from various departments. Since we'd be spending at least five years together, I didn't think such an arrangement was bad. In other words, we were not allowed to realise that it was a bad thing.
The real problems began before the first semester exams. Around a hundred of us were crammed in, with no environment for study. How were we to sit for exams? I would study in a senior's room, then return to the common room to sleep.
I hold both the Chhatra League and the Chhatra Dal responsible for Zubair's death
Meanwhile, I was prevented from attending meetings of my own organisation—as though I had committed a crime. It was mental torture.
For years, Bangladeshi female students have been doing better than male students in exam-based education. This is a positive thing. But one major reason that male students lag behind is this first-year "common room" culture which fosters baton-wielding student politics.
Meanwhile, the hall administration seemed non-existent. So-called senior "political brothers" would reassure us. "It'll happen, it'll happen."
But bypassing them to approach hall administrators was considered "breaking protocol" and was punishable. The threat of the informal torture cell loomed.
One fine day, at a common meeting, the hall provost said seat allocations would remain exactly as arranged by the elder brothers. "We won't interfere."
These "elder brothers" were JCD's hall leaders. They turned their gaze towards us for the first time, 12 months after classes began. Special punishment was arranged for a few of us (9–10 students). Every few days, we'd receive notices to change rooms (10 people crammed into a four-person room). A few were from leftist student groups, others were victims of sub-groups within JCD created by hall leaders.
Among those punished were myself, my friend and now well-known band musician Sina Hasan, and Zubair Ahmed—who was murdered in his final year. Zubair's killing by members of the so-called VC League in his fourth year had its roots in this first-year hall politics under the Chhatra Dal.
Even when I finally got a seat after twelve months my academic loss was irreparable.
Weaponising 'common room culture'
The "common room" culture, an invention of the ruling party's student wing, allows them to take control of seat allocation in the halls.
If you want muscle-based politics, this is the only way to pull people into rallies and make them avoid classes for protocol duties, to keep "political rooms" under your name like inherited property, to create "political blocks" in the hall.
This is how students are turned into subservient dependents. The mental abuse from dangling a seat allocation over someone's head is unimaginable. Feudalism and slavery merge in Bangladesh's student halls.
Many endure it and some abandon ideals and become "elder brothers" themselves, and others quit the hall in humiliation and live outside.
This framework for turning student groups into monsters has been fuelled for years by both university and hall administrations, under both Awami League and BNP. By abandoning their duties and letting the musclemen allocate seats, the cycle remains intact.
So does the problem lie with student politics, or with administrative will? With politics itself, or with the absence of the rule of law? With organisations becoming monsters, or with the patronage that turns them into monsters? Without understanding these issues, the motives of those opposing student politics to prove their liberal credentials are questionable.
Curious double standards
This debate resurfaced after JCD announced committees for 18 halls at Dhaka University, which triggered some students. In this regard, some students protested against the hall committees, essentially the first step toward banning student politics on campus.
The university administration declared late at night that both visible and invisible or covert, politics would be banned in the halls, which feels like the depoliticisation era of Ayub Khan and Hussain Muhammad Ershad, when politics and gatherings were banned under emergency rule
The idea of allowing campus politics but banning it in the halls is absurd. In response to such an absurd claim, the university administration declared late at night that both visible and invisible or covert, politics would be banned in the halls, which feels like the depoliticisation era of Ayub Khan and Hussain Muhammad Ershad, when politics and gatherings were banned under emergency rule.
Those people, who think Bangladesh can change without changing its universities must be living in a fool's paradise.
Universities can change Bangladesh and they've proven it repeatedly. But lasting solutions haven't emerged. This is why the university system must be reformed. Meanwhile, the World Bank's 20-year higher education strategy also indirectly calls for banning student politics in the halls and the World Bank's project beneficiaries sit on campus ready to please it. Bravo indeed!
You can ban open politics, as Ayub did. But covert politics?
Underground politics has a history and it has entered the campuses too. By definition, covert politics is already banned in public spaces. So, banning what is already banned is just theatre to make banning open politics easier?
Where did this covert politics come from, and who are its players? Without exposing them, how can you ban it?
Until that is clear, we must assume that banning open politics is meant to strengthen covert politics.
Surprisingly, one of the prominent faces of last year's mass uprising, Umama Fatema, added fuel to this line of thought by writing on social media, "Is university a place for studying or for doing politics?"
Any politically aware Bangladeshi would be surprised by this because, just a year ago, she was at the forefront of a major political movement, and now she's against political rights in universities.
One of the core spirits of the mass uprising was that no one should be barred from political activity or free expression.
Organising, assembling are all citizen rights, guaranteed even by the 1973 University Ordinance that includes halls.
But now Umama and others are trying to tame post-uprising student politics by pushing for a hall policy based on a July 2024 notice. This is deeply problematic.
That July 2024 strategy was meant to counter the monster that was the Chhatra League. But has a new monster already emerged? Or is this a strategy based on fear? And, if fear exists, why prescribe cutting off the head instead of medicating to cure the headache"?
Over the past year, similar demands to ban student politics have arisen in various campuses. Those making such demands have often turned out to be members of a specific political organisation themselves.
Who imposed the ban?
The central student union and hall union elections are approaching. Can elections be held by banning student politics in the dormitories? This will create such a "functional disorder" among the student organisations, that it could lead to even more disastrous consequences.
There will be a state of absolute anarchy due to the lack of accountability. No one can be questioned. There will be such uncertainty over which candidates the student organisations will nominate, that the student union elections themselves may become uncertain. This is outright hypocrisy – on the one hand a demand for student unions, and on the other a demand for banning student politics in the halls.
The proctor of Dhaka University overstepped his authority by announcing a ban on student politics in the halls. Halls do not fall under the decision-making jurisdiction of a proctor. His responsibility is to ensure campus security.
What truly should be banned is "covert politics", because anything that operates invisibly is always murky and inherently dangerous. It's so dangerous that when an individual commits a crime, the blame falls solely on them, even though there might be a massive and hidden organisational force behind it.
The halls are entirely under the supervision of the hall provosts. Even when law enforcement conducts a raid in the halls, they must get permission from the university administration, especially from the provost. So, under what authority did the proctor make such an announcement?
For some time now, we were doubtful and suspicious over whether student union elections will actually take place in the universities. We thought this was a drama, used as a tactic to pacify the campuses by dangling the promise of elections in front of the students. Through this reckless move by the Dhaka University administration, our suspicions have now been further intensified.
Rehabilitated leaguers vs covert loyalists
There is another crucial aspect we need to pay attention to. After the announcement of Chhatra Dal's hall committee, it was discovered that many of the appointees had previously been engaged with Chhatra League. Upon learning detailed information about several of them, Chhatra Dal suspended their primary membership. However, it's already being said that "those from the League who joined the party are rehabilitated."
On the other hand, after 5 August last year, we saw several individuals who had been active in Chhatra League politics emerge as members of Chhatra Shibir. Regarding them, the narrative was: "Those from the League who joined Shibir were covert loyalists."
Considering these two statements side by side creates a rather poetic but disturbing picture:
This narrative is extremely problematic. It creates a situation where the Dal becomes a target through one interpretation, but Shibir gets the benefit of doubt. In other words, we are witnessing a double standard: join Chhatra Dal and you're a rehabilitated Leaguer; join Shibir and you're a hidden Leaguer. This narrative paints some as heroes and others as villains.
But in truth, no one associated with the League should be granted any benefit of the doubt by any organisation. Because those who were involved actively contributed to the League's operations, including acts of oppression and violence. Will they not be held accountable?
The administration's role
Seemingly, the demand to ban open or public student politics has been raised as a reaction to Chhatra Dal publicly announcing its hall committee. This certainly highlights Chhatra Dal's "incompetence" that it cannot operate covertly. Had it been able to, such displeasure would not have arisen.
However, politics should indeed be done openly, and doing so makes it possible to identify anyone involved in crimes and take organisational and legal action against them. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this.
In fact, what truly should be banned is "covert politics", because anything that operates invisibly is always murky and inherently dangerous. It's so dangerous that when an individual commits a crime, the blame falls solely on them, even though there might be a massive and hidden organisational force behind it, fueling and supporting the act. That means such an organisation remains untouchable and unaccountable.
Instead of opposing open student politics, we should raise our voices against the politics of dominance across campuses. It's possible that Chhatra Dal or Chhatra Shibir, following their past trajectories, might once again become monstrous forces or may do so in the near future.
The awareness among students regarding this is commendable. But the way to prevent these organisations from becoming monsters is to dismantle the very foundational framework of dominance.
The responsibility of seat allocation must be taken up by the administration. No student organisation should be allowed to "perform" this task.
That should be the core slogan echoing across halls and campuses. Only then can the pipeline of campus terrorism, ragging, bullying, extortion, tender manipulation, showdowns, and freeloading be shut down.
If students can implement this through the spirit of a mass uprising, then the dominance-centric politics in the halls could be replaced by students' own ownership and rights over these spaces.
And of course, the university and hall administrations must play their proper role in creating a democratic environment on campus and in the dormitories. Because, at the end of the day, everything depends on the goodwill of the administration.
More precisely, it is through administrative patronage that ruling student organisations become monsters. But if the administration fails to show this much-needed goodwill, then they must be forced to resign. Without holding the administration accountable, there's no real value in simply turning hostile toward student politics.
Why no educational reform?
Amidst the nationwide outcry for reform at Dhaka University and in other campuses, those who became agitated in favour of banning student politics in halls, have they ever raised demands for the formation of an Education Reform Commission? If not, why?
There has been a huge uproar regarding the demands of a "July Charter" or "July Declaration" aimed at radically transforming the state. But why aren't the major participants of the movement raising demands for a "Campus Charter", where both students and teachers collectively agree on what kind of university they want to see? Why aren't they saying that the University Environment Council must be made effective?
Those who believe that Bangladesh will change without changing its universities are probably living in a fool's paradise. The universities can change Bangladesh. They have done it previously but those changes have never been permanent. That's why it is essential to strike at the university system.
And yet, in post-uprising Bangladesh, to attempt to ban student politics instead of presenting any framework for reforming the university system, is not only shameful, but also a betrayal of the spirit of the uprising.
The writer is an assistant professor, School of General Education, BRAC University
Comments